Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroy
I don't think the cops were wrong to shoot the suspect. He was clearly unstable and was behaving in a very threatening manner. The fact he ripped the tazer off his face like it was a mosquito probably freaked everyone out too. I think the first set of shots fired upon him were completely justified; he earned those bullets with his actions/inaction.
I'll freely admit that there may have been more going on that I realize, but I don't agree with the latter 5 shots fired upon him when he was downed. Maybe Mike (or someone with more combat experience) can shed some light on how dangerous a downed man with 5 pieces of lead in him can be. I don't know if he was capable of swinging his weapon at that point. To my civilian self, he seemed incapacitated.
I agree it's the officer's duty to incapacitate him with lethal force; it's a fine line but not sure I can justify a police officer deciding to finish him off. Was the suspect shot in the chest/back once he was downed? I think I heard someone say he was shot in the back. I know you guys are arguing that once lethal force has been determined, it doesn't matter how many shots were fired. I may be wrong in my belief, but I feel once the suspect has been incapacitated, the officer's duty has been fulfilled. And in this case, wasn't it a 2nd officer that shot him on the ground?
I think the officer just got spooked and shot him; which is understandable. But from the video, I can't tell if it was justified. And for the record, I support the decision to shoot him; I'm just hung up on a technicality.
|
There are many cases in which an offender continues to fight long after he has been shot multiple times. There are also many cases where officers cannot recall how many rounds are fired after a shooting. The first is caused by the varying condition of the suspect. The latter is caused by perceptual narrowing.
As objectionable as it seems to everyone involved, deadly force is deadly force. There is no such thing as more dead. MOST cops are not interested in killing anyone contrary to what has been suggested by Beemw335. The emotional trauma, stigma of a bad shoot, extreme liability and the highly unpleasant experience of being sued in civil court or charged criminally are all burdens police officers carry every day they go to work. NO ONE in their right mind would take on all that because they think they are Gods.
Will the officer be held liable for shooting five more rounds? Maybe, but not likely. The reason why stems from the fact that an officer in high stress is susceptible to time compression, perceptual narrowing and auditory exclusion. The other officer may not have even heard the rounds being fired. He may have perceived that the suspect was still a threat (Remember that shooting part only lasts a second, maybe two). We can not replay those officers thoughts or emotions at the moment of the shooting, but we can look at the situation through the lens of federal case law.
KROY, to your question, I can't say if he was a continuing threat or not since I wasn't there. I admit it doesn't look like it, but we can't see the whole thing. However, the above medical factors were probably in play with these officers and case law supports their actions in this instance (In my opinion only). If I were truly a God, I would know all the answers here, but sadly, this is the best I can do
